Fundamental changes are taking place
in the historical policies of the United States with regard to
human rights, our role in the community of nations and the Middle
East peace process  largely without definitive debates
(except, at times, within the administration). Some new approaches
have understandably evolved from quick and well-advised reactions
by President Bush to the tragedy of Sept. 11, but others seem
to be developing from a core group of conservatives who are trying
to realize long-pent-up ambitions under the cover of the proclaimed
war against terrorism.
Formerly admired almost universally as
the preeminent champion of human rights, our country has become
the foremost target of respected international organizations
concerned about these basic principles of democratic life. We
have ignored or condoned abuses in nations that support our anti-terrorism
effort, while detaining American citizens as "enemy combatants,"
incarcerating them secretly and indefinitely without their being
charged with any crime or having the right to legal counsel.
This policy has been condemned by the federal courts, but the
Justice Department seems adamant, and the issue is still in doubt.
Several hundred captured Taliban soldiers remain imprisoned at
Guantanamo Bay under the same circumstances, with the defense
secretary declaring that they would not be released even if they
were someday tried and found to be innocent. These actions are
similar to those of abusive regimes that historically have been
condemned by American presidents.
While the president has reserved judgment,
the American people are inundated almost daily with claims from
the vice president and other top officials that we face a devastating
threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and with pledges
to remove Saddam Hussein from office, with or without support
from any allies. As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign
allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and
incumbent officeholders, there is no current danger to the United
States from Baghdad. In the face of intense monitoring and overwhelming
American military superiority, any belligerent move by Hussein
against a neighbor, even the smallest nuclear test (necessary
before weapons construction), a tangible threat to use a weapon
of mass destruction, or sharing this technology with terrorist
organizations would be suicidal. But it is quite possible that
such weapons would be used against Israel or our forces in response
to an American attack.
We cannot ignore the development of chemical,
biological or nuclear weapons, but a unilateral war with Iraq
is not the answer. There is an urgent need for U.N. action to
force unrestricted inspections in Iraq. But perhaps deliberately
so, this has become less likely as we alienate our necessary
allies. Apparently disagreeing with the president and secretary
of state, in fact, the vice president has now discounted this
goal as a desirable option.
We have thrown down counterproductive
gauntlets to the rest of the world, disavowing U.S. commitments
to laboriously negotiated international accords.
Peremptory rejections of nuclear arms
agreements, the biological weapons convention, environmental
protection, anti-torture proposals, and punishment of war criminals
have sometimes been combined with economic threats against those
who might disagree with us. These unilateral acts and assertions
increasingly isolate the United States from the very nations
needed to join in combating terrorism.
Tragically, our government is abandoning
any sponsorship of substantive negotiations between Palestinians
and Israelis. Our apparent policy is to support almost every
Israeli action in the occupied territories and to condemn and
isolate the Palestinians as blanket targets of our war on terrorism,
while Israeli settlements expand and Palestinian enclaves shrink.
There still seems to be a struggle within
the administration over defining a comprehensible Middle East
policy. The president's clear commitments to honor key U.N. resolutions
and to support the establishment of a Palestinian state have
been substantially negated by statements of the defense secretary
that in his lifetime "there will be some sort of an entity
that will be established" and his reference to the "so-called
occupation." This indicates a radical departure from policies
of every administration since 1967, always based on the withdrawal
of Israel from occupied territories and a genuine peace between
Israelis and their neighbors.
Belligerent and divisive voices now seem
to be dominant in Washington, but they do not yet reflect final
decisions of the president, Congress or the courts. It is crucial
that the historical and well-founded American commitments prevail:
to peace, justice, human rights, the environment and international
cooperation.

Former president Carter is chairman of the
Carter Center in Atlanta.
&COPY; 2002 The Washington Post Company